Please Stop Asking Senate Candidates About the Red Sox

Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) greets a supporter outside Fenway Park. <a href="">Scott Brown</a>/Flickr

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Technically, Elizabeth Warren whiffed and Scott Brown punted. With five minutes to spare in Monday night’s Massachusetts Senate debate, moderator David Gregory, host of NBC’s Meet the Press, concluded he’d spent enough time grilling the candidates on Afghanistan (about two-and-half minutes), and on the ethnic background of Elizabeth Warren’s mother (about seven minutes), and decided to use his last question on a matter he considered to be of great importance.

“I saved the most contentious for last,” Gregory said, a smile creeping across his face. “The worst Red Sox season in decades, I hate to tell you. So, Ms. Warren, does Bobby Valentine deserve another year, or should he be fired?”

Valentine is objectively terrible and should be fired. But at a debate for a race that could determine which party controls the Senate it shouldn’t have even been asked.

“I had such hopes for Bobby Valentine,” Warren said, referring to the franchise’s beleaguered manager. “I’m still just in wounded mode on that one.”

Gregory followed up: “Stick around? Should he be given another chance or should he be fired?”


“This is the back page of the Boston Herald we’re talking tomorrow morning, come on you’ve got to commit!” Gregory said.

“Then I’d give him another year,” Warren said. “Let him build it, yeah, let’s see if he can do it.”

“Give him another year!” Gregory turned the question on Brown. “Senator?”

“Well, I remember at the beginning of the season that Professor Warren said they were gonna win 90 games and obviously that hasn’t happened,” he said. “It’s been very disappointing, but I’ll leave that up to the Red Sox management. But certainly we need to do better next year.”

Gregory, incredulous again: “You’re not gonna commit, one way or the other?”

“No, there’s a lot of problems and they need to work it out for themselves.”

So there you have it. Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren have officially weighed in on whether the manager of the local baseball team during the 2012 season should return as manager for the start of the 2013 season. All because of a pretty simple misconception—namely, that Democratic attorney general Martha Coakley’s off-key comments about Fenway Park in 2010 caused her to lose her special election to Brown. Brown didn’t beat Coakley in 2010 because Coakley was insufficiently enamored with the home team. If that were the case, Sen. John Kerry (whose professed favorite player, “Manny Ortez,” is actually a made-up person), would have been thrown out of office long ago. Coakley’s famed dismissal of the notion of shaking hands outside Fenway Park, in the cold, mattered because it reflected a voter outreach strategy that seemed to write off a large part of the population. (It wasn’t Red Sox fans Coakley had spurned at Fenway; it was Bruins fans, who were there for a hockey game.)

Neither Brown nor Warren gave the correct answer on Monday night in Lowell. Valentine is objectively terrible and should be fired. But at a debate for a race that could determine which party controls the Senate—and the very real public policy implications it entails—it shouldn’t have even been asked. Massachusetts isn’t the only state where residents have a rooting interest in the local sports team; it’s just the only state where out-of-town political journalists believe they have a responsibility to ask about it.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend